Heritability Estimates of Obesity Measures in Siblings With and Without Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of the present study was to evaluate mean values and heritability estimates of 3 global and 11 regional obesity measures in siblings with (HPT, n=209) or without (non-HPT, n=91) early-onset (age </=55 years) hypertension who originated from the same families. Sixty-one sibships, each having at least 2 HPT siblings, were selected from a French-Canadian population with a known founder effect. Comparison of the mean values showed that HPT siblings are more obese than non-HPT siblings and that the body fat of HPT siblings is more centrally distributed. Significant differences were observed in all global obesity measures (P=0.009 to 0.0001). Among the regional measures, the most prominent differences were seen in waist circumference (P=0.00002), waist/hip ratio (P=0.0001), and suprailiac skinfold (P=0.00008). Comparison of the heritability estimates derived from sibling/sibling correlations (FCOR program, SAGE) suggested that genetic factors play a greater role in HPT (n=357) than in non-HPT (n=93) sib-pairs in determining most obesity measures. Similar to the mean values, these differences were most apparent in global and upper-body measures, with heritabilities ranging from 40% to 70% (P=0.05 to 0.0006) in HPT siblings and from 0% to 32% (P=NS) in non-HPT siblings. In summary, the present results suggest that HPT and non-HPT siblings drawn from the same families differ by the degree and distribution of body fat accumulation and that this difference is determined, at least in part, by genetic factors cosegregating with hypertension. This, in turn, suggests that a genetic link exists between obesity and hypertension in these families.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".